Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID 1

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Case 3:14-cv-02910-L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID 1"

Transcription

1 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID 1 OVERPASSES FOR AMERICA; and VALERIE VILLARREAL, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION -v.- Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS Defendant. COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal (hereinafter Plaintiffs ), by and through undersigned counsel, bring this Complaint against the Defendant City of Dallas, and their employees, agents, and successors in office, and in support thereof allege the following upon information and belief: INTRODUCTION 1. First and foremost, this case seeks to protect and vindicate fundamental constitutional rights. It is a civil rights action brought under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C seeking redress for the deprivation of their constitutional rights and violations of law caused by Defendant City of Dallas. 2. This case is about the right of all Americans, not just Americans who hold popular religious and political viewpoints, to exercise free speech and free association within our traditional public fora.

2 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 2 of 14 PageID 2 3. Defendant City of Dallas enacted an Amended Ordinance ; (Jan. 22, 2014) which eviscerates Plaintiffs fundamental rights of free speech and peaceable assembly, making it unlawful and subjecting to fines speech and assembly which takes place on any overpass in the City of Dallas, Texas (hereinafter free speech ban ), a forum which shares the same protections as a public sidewalk and constitutes a traditional public forum. (See Exhibit 1- City of Dallas Free Speech Ban). 4. Plaintiffs Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal challenge the constitutionality of the City of Dallas free speech ban. 5. Through Defendant s enactment and enforcement of the City of Dallas free speech ban, the Defendant has deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiffs of their paramount rights and guarantees protected by the United States Constitution and actionable under 42 U.S.C Allegations herein relate to the ordinance, actions and practices of those entities, persons, their predecessors and/or successors pertaining to the City of Dallas free speech ban while acting in the capacity as representatives of the City of Dallas, Texas. All acts alleged herein were committed by Defendant under the color of state law and municipal authority. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages and attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C and JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. The action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C and Plaintiffs claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C 2201 and 2202, by Rule 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by the general 2

3 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 3 of 14 PageID 3 legal and equitable powers of this court. Plaintiffs claims for damages are authorized under 42 U.S.C and by the general legal and equitable powers of this court. 9. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), as the claims arose in this district and all parties reside within the district. PLAINTIFFS 10. Plaintiff Overpasses for America is a non-partisan grassroots movement consisting of regular American citizens who value the rights of the United States Constitution. 11. Plaintiff Overpasses for America exercise their free speech and free assembly rights to discuss and draw attention to issues in our government and promote positive and honest governmental reform. 12. Plaintiff Overpasses for America spreads the message of limited executive powers in our federal government and of accountability amongst our nation s leaders. 13. Plaintiff Overpasses for America is compelled to spread their message to promote a prosperous America and to preserve our constitutionally-recognized freedoms. 14. Plaintiff Valerie Villarreal is a resident of Plano, Texas, which is a northern suburb of Dallas, Texas. 15. Plaintiff Valerie Villarreal is the Texas State Leader, the regional leader for North Texas, and a member of Overpasses for America, specifically the North Dallas/Collin County Chapter of Overpasses for America. 16. Plaintiff Valerie Villarreal exercises her rights to free speech and free assembly with Plaintiff Overpasses for America. 3

4 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 4 of 14 PageID Plaintiffs Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal have regularly engaged and wish to continue to engage in lawful, peaceful free speech in the City of Dallas on or around its overpasses. DEFENDANT 18. Defendant City of Dallas, Texas is a municipal governmental authority and a subdivision of the State of Texas. Defendant City of Dallas, Texas is a municipal corporation with the right to sue and be sued. The City of Dallas, Texas and its officials are responsible for creating, adopting, and enforcing the rules, regulations, ordinances, laws, policies, practices, procedures, and/or customs for the City of Dallas, Texas. 19. The City, its officials, and police department are responsible for creating, adopting, approving, ratifying, and enforcing the ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, practices, procedures, and/or customs of the City, including the policies, practices, and procedures of its police department and ordinances as set forth in this Complaint. FACTUAL PREDICATE Plaintiffs Free Speech and Free Assembly 20. Plaintiffs Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal hold assemblies to exercise their free speech rights and educate citizens of the Dallas area about governmental practices and political philosophies. 21. Plaintiffs Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal reach their intended audiences in the City of Dallas by utilizing the City s overpasses. 22. Overpasses typically consist of a sidewalk with a fence along one or both sides. Many overpasses consist of a public street next to or contiguously adjoining the sidewalk. 4

5 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 5 of 14 PageID The sidewalk space of the overpass arches across the width of the highway and is truly used as a public sidewalk. 24. The sidewalk space of the overpass arches across the width of the highway. 25. The sidewalk space of the overpass provides the Plaintiffs with an ideal forum which allows Plaintiffs to reach a large number of individuals in the general public with their message and which allows Plaintiffs to freely associate to discuss their message. 26. Plaintiffs and their many supporters have demonstrated and associated on overpasses of the City of Dallas because there is no similar location that will reach the same audience or the same amount of people. 27. Defendant allows for Plaintiffs intended audience to receive numerous messages and view various signs including billboards on the highway, transit advertisements such as bus exteriors, mobile and truck side billboards, and alternative advertising such as airborne displays. 28. Plaintiffs have held approximately free speech assemblies on overpasses in the City of Dallas and its surrounding areas. 29. Plaintiffs intend to continue to hold peaceful, free speech assemblies in the City of Dallas. 30. Plaintiffs free speech assemblies have never caused a public safety or traffic safety issue. 31. On March 1, 2014, Plaintiffs held a free speech assembly in the City of Dallas on Northaven overpass at the Dallas North Tollway. This overpass borders a neighborhood street with the posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. 32. Plaintiffs free speech assembly gained participation of approximately citizens. 5

6 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 6 of 14 PageID Plaintiffs typically expect approximately citizen participation for all of their free speech assemblies held on overpasses in the Dallas area. 34. Plaintiffs organized the event in cooperation with law enforcement from the Dallas Police Department and with a Director of Homeland Security in Dallas. 35. The free speech assembly was a success and posed no public safety or traffic safety issues. 36. Plaintiffs held signs in compliance with the City of Dallas ordinances using signs of two sizes: 40 in. by 32 in. or 30 in. by 20 in. 37. Plaintiffs tied no signs to the fencing of the overpass. 38. Plaintiffs again organized to hold a similar assembly to take place in the City of Dallas with volunteers on March 15, Plaintiffs intended to tie no signs to the fencing of the overpass nor use any signs that failed to comply with the City of Dallas ordinances. 40. Plaintiffs intended on causing no public safety or traffic safety issues, and wished to peacefully assemble, spread their message through peaceful speech, and educate the public. 41. Plaintiffs first contacted the Dallas Police Department and a Director of Homeland Security to inform the City of Dallas of their wishes to hold another free speech assembly. 42. Plaintiffs had advertised their free speech assembly to be held on March 15, 2014 and had posted information about the assembly on facebook.com. 43. Plaintiffs were looking forward to holding the free speech assembly on March 15, 2014 and garnered a positive anticipation for their event. 6

7 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 7 of 14 PageID Plaintiffs, however, were informed that they would not be allowed to hold their free speech assembly because the Dallas Police Department was now obligated to enforce the City of Dallas free speech ban. City of Dallas Free Speech Ban 45. On January 22, 2014, the City of Dallas amended their free speech ban. 46. Prior to amending their free speech ban, City of Dallas Council Members commented that the City of Dallas has recently been sued twice due to infringing upon the free speech rights of its citizens through the enactment of unnecessary ordinances. 47. A Council Member for the City of Dallas commented that the amendment at issue (the free speech ban) was an ordinance we don t need. 48. A Council Member for the City of Dallas also stated, relying upon information from the Department of Transportation for the State of Texas, that there is no data that there has ever been any safety issue due to free speech assemblies occurring on the City of Dallas overpasses, let alone even evidence of a single traffic accident due to a free speech assembly in the City of Dallas. 49. Despite this information, the City of Dallas passed the amendment and enacted its free speech ban. 50. The City of Dallas free speech ban threatens Plaintiffs with criminal sanctions and fines up to $ for exercising their rights to free speech and free assembly. 51. Plaintiffs cannot engage in their desired expressive speech and association without violating or being cited under the City of Dallas free speech ban. 52. Plaintiffs want to continue to engage in their desired expressive speech and association as they had been doing prior to the enactment of the City of Dallas free speech ban. 7

8 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 8 of 14 PageID The City of Dallas free speech ban imposes an unconstitutional burden on Plaintiffs constitutional rights. 54. The City of Dallas free speech ban is overbroad, vague, and unconstitutional both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. 55. The City of Dallas free speech ban does nothing to further public safety interests. 56. Defendant has silenced Plaintiffs freedom of speech and thwarted Plaintiffs freedom of assembly to advance their message to their intended audience. 57. The City of Dallas free speech ban permits billboards and other advertisements which appeal to passengers and drivers on the roadway. 58. The City of Dallas free speech ban permits signs describing traffic and construction conditions which appeal to passengers and drivers on the roadway. 59. The City of Dallas free speech ban only serves to silence and foreclose Plaintiffs speech and association, rendering Plaintiffs unable to reach their intended audience with their message and viewpoint. 60. The City of Dallas free speech ban deprives Plaintiffs of their fundamental rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH 61. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all above-stated paragraphs. 62. By reason of the aforementioned, Defendant s free speech ban amended, created, adopted, and enforced under color of state law, has prohibited and continues to prohibit Plaintiffs from exercising their right to engage in free speech in a traditional public forum in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states and their political 8

9 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 9 of 14 PageID 9 subdivisions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C Defendant s free speech ban imposes unconstitutional restrictions on Plaintiffs right to free speech. Unconstitutionally Vague 64. Defendant s free speech ban does not clearly define the terms sign, display, access road, lateral lines of the roadway, and main travel lane. 65. Defendant s free speech ban is unconstitutionally vague because there is no way an ordinary or reasonable person would know how the City of Dallas construes the prohibition in the free speech ban against conduct that is intended to distract the attention of motorists in a main travel lane of the highway, carrying, holding, waving, displaying, or otherwise drawing attention to a sign, or wearing any costume, clothing, attire, or accessory intended to attract or seek the attention of the public. 66. The free speech ban is unconstitutionally vague because there is no way an ordinary or reasonable person would know how the City construes sign, display, access road, lateral lines of the roadway, or main travel lane for purposes of enforcing the free speech ban to restrict and/or outlaw expressive conduct and speech. 67. Since the free speech ban envelops myriad protected speech and expression in failing to define its operable terms, the free speech ban is unconstitutionally vague. 68. Since the free speech ban fails to define its operable terms and explicitly directs and empowers police enforcement, the free speech ban is unconstitutionally vague and chills protected free speech. Unconstitutionally Overbroad 9

10 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 10 of 14 PageID Defendant s free speech ban is not a reasonable time, place and manner restriction. 70. Defendant s free speech ban is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. 71. Defendant s free speech ban does not adequately allow for alternative means of effective exercise of Plaintiffs free speech rights. 72. Defendant s free speech ban encompasses peaceful free speech that is not threatening, violent, or unsafe. 73. Defendant s free speech ban prevents and deters Plaintiffs from engaging in constitutionally protected speech, thereby inflicting continuing injury to Plaintiffs. 74. As a result of the overbreadth of Defendant s free speech ban, a high probability exists that Defendant will engage in over-enforcement of the free speech ban in a manner which unavoidably criminalizes constitutionally protected activity. Unconstitutional As Applied 75. Plaintiffs planned to engage in constitutionally protected speech on a public sidewalk when they were told that they were forbidden from holding their free speech assembly due to Defendant s free speech ban. 76. Plaintiffs were specifically informed that their planned free speech assembly could not take place due to Defendant s free speech ban. 77. Plaintiffs were directly threatened with criminal prosecution and sanctions for their constitutionally protected free speech due to Defendant s free speech ban. 78. Plaintiffs free speech assemblies have never caused a public nuisance, disturbed the peace, nor created either a public safety or traffic safety risk. 10

11 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 11 of 14 PageID Defendant permits an abundance of commercial speech and non-political speech in varying forms near overpasses where Plaintiffs wish to hold their free speech assemblies. 80. Defendant s free speech ban is content-based, targeting the political speech and message of Plaintiffs. 81. Plaintiffs reasonably fear that if they were to hold another free speech assembly on an overpass in the City of Dallas, Plaintiffs would be arrested and/or criminally charged under Defendant s free speech ban. 82. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant s free speech ban, Plaintiffs are chilled and deterred from exercising their constitutionally protected free speech rights. 83. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant s free speech ban, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer irreparable harm. 84. Plaintiffs seek a declaration from this Court that Defendant s free speech ban is constitutionally invalid either on its face as it is vague and overbroad, or as it has been unlawfully applied to Plaintiffs peaceful free speech activities. 85. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the enforcement of Defendant s free speech ban so that they can return to engaging in peaceful, constitutionally protected speech in a traditional public forum in the City of Dallas without fear of criminal citation, penalties, and/or arrest. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS RIGHT TO PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY 86. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all above-stated paragraphs. 87. By reason of the aforementioned, Defendant s free speech ban has prohibited and continues to prohibit Plaintiffs from engaging in peaceable assembly guaranteed by the First 11

12 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 12 of 14 PageID 12 Amendment as applied to the states and their political subdivisions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C The actions and laws of Defendant through Defendant s free speech ban as stated herein poses unconstitutional restrictions on Plaintiffs right to peaceable assembly. 89. Plaintiffs seek to join with others to share their free speech message on and near overpasses in the City of Dallas. For fear of arrest, Plaintiffs have refrained from participating in such assemblies. 90. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s free speech ban, Plaintiffs are chilled and deterred from exercising their right to peaceable assembly. 91. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s free speech ban, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer irreparable harm. 92. Plaintiffs seek a declaration from this Court that Defendant s free speech ban is constitutionally invalid as it denies Plaintiffs of their freedom of assembly. 93. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against enforcement of Defendant s free speech ban so that they can return to engaging in peaceful, constitutionally protected assembly in a traditional public forum in the City of Dallas without fear of criminal citation, penalties, and/or arrest. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal respectfully petition this Honorable Court to: A. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; 12

13 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 13 of 14 PageID 13 B. Enter a judgment and decree declaring Defendant s free speech ban unconstitutionally denies Plaintiffs of their rights to free speech and free association as described above; C. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from applying and enforcing their unconstitutional free speech ban against Plaintiffs as described above; D. Award Plaintiffs monetary damages to compensate them for their present and continuing loss of free speech assembly in the City of Dallas, and for all other actual injuries Plaintiffs have suffered as a result of Defendant s conduct with respect to their free speech ban; E. Award Plaintiffs nominal damages as set forth in this Complaint; F. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C and other applicable law; and G. Grant any such further relief as the Court should find just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues triable of right by a jury. 13

14 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 14 of 14 PageID 14 Respectfully submitted, Jerad Wayne Najvar Bar No (Texas) NAJVAR LAW FIRM 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 625 Houston, TX phone fax Attorney in Charge for Plaintiffs s/ Erin Mersino* Erin Mersino, Esq. (P70886) (Michigan) THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER Frank Lloyd Wright Dr. P.O. Box 393 Ann Arbor, MI phone fax Of counsel for Plaintiffs *Pro Hac Vice pending s/ Erin Kuenzig* Erin Kuenzig, Esq. (P78077) (Michigan) THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER Frank Lloyd Wright Dr. P.O. Box 393 Ann Arbor, MI phone fax Of counsel for Plaintiffs *Pro Hac Vice pending 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case:-cv-0 Document Filed0// Page of Michael Millen Attorney at Law (#) Calle Marguerita Ste. 0 Telephone: Fax: (0) -0 mikemillen@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, ) ) ) DATE: TIME: ) TRIAL: None Set. Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, ) ) ) DATE: TIME: ) TRIAL: None Set. Defendants. Gary G. Kreep, Esq. ( UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATION 01 East Valley Parkway, Suite 1-C Escondido, CA 0 (0 1-0 Telephone (0 1- Facsimile Richard D. Ackerman, Esq. (10 Scott Douglas Lively, Esq. Dana Cody,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER Case 1:14-cv-05919-JEI-KMW Document 19 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 84 Frank L. Corrado, Esquire Attorney ID No. 022221983 BARRY, CORRADO & GRASSI, PC 2700 Pacific Avenue Wildwood, NJ 08260 (609)

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION W. ANDREW MCCULLOUGH, L.L.C. (2170) Attorney for Plaintiffs 6885 South State St., Suite 200 Midvale, UT 84047 Telephone: (801) 565-0894 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ANAKA HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SALEM, MISSOURI, a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Missouri,

More information

Case 2:14-cv-00644-DB Document 2 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 10

Case 2:14-cv-00644-DB Document 2 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 10 Case 2:14-cv-00644-DB Document 2 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 10 STEWART GOLLAN USB # 12524 UTAH LEGAL CLINIC Cooperating Attorneys for UTAH CIVIL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES FOUNDATION, INC. 214 East Fifth South Street

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY. No.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY. No. TREVOR A. GRIMM, State Bar No. JONATHAN M. COUPAL, State Bar No. 1 TIMOTHY A. BITTLE, State Bar No. 00 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation 1 Eleventh Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 1 (1-0 Attorneys for

More information

COMPLAINT. 1. This action arises under Article I, 2, 7, 10 and 12 of the Rhode Island

COMPLAINT. 1. This action arises under Article I, 2, 7, 10 and 12 of the Rhode Island STATE OF RHODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT ) DENNIS GESMONDI, DALLAS HUARD) and GEORGE MADANCY, ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) C.A. No. ) STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, ) RHODE ISLAND ATTORNEY ) GENERAL, and PROVIDENCE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION MAVERICK COUCH, a minor, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, TONYA COUCH, v. Plaintiff, WAYNE LOCAL SCHOOL

More information

Case 3:14-cv-01824-M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1

Case 3:14-cv-01824-M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 Case 3:14-cv-01824-M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION BEST LITTLE PROMOHOUSE IN TEXAS LLC, Plaintiffs,

More information

Case 5:14-cv-00631 Document 1 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:14-cv-00631 Document 1 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION Case 5:14-cv-00631 Document 1 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION CAROLE RIELEY Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14 cv 00631

More information

Case 2:15-cv-03008-SDW-SCM Document 1 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 2:15-cv-03008-SDW-SCM Document 1 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 2:15-cv-03008-SDW-SCM Document 1 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1 Francis J. Manion Lead Counsel for Plaintiff American Center for Law & Justice Mark R. Scirocco Legal Center for Defense of Life,

More information

SIMULATED ESSAY EXAM CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

SIMULATED ESSAY EXAM CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SIMULATED ESSAY EXAM CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SADS, a national college student organization, decided to conduct a campaign protesting government defense spending. SADS members at a university in City planned

More information

NO. PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. Now comes, Tommy Adkisson, individually, in his official capacity as Bexar County

NO. PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. Now comes, Tommy Adkisson, individually, in his official capacity as Bexar County NO. Filed 10 June 24 P12:29 Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza District Clerk Travis District D-1-GN-10-002120 TOMMY ADKISSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND OFFICIALLY ON BEHALF OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERPCT.4

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Case 2:11-cv-00225-KDE-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ) MARIO CACHO and ANTONIO OCAMPO, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) No. v. ) ) SHERIFF

More information

CAUSE NO. IN THE DISTRICT COURT. Xxxxx Yyyyy Plaintiffs JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Aaaaa Bbbbb Cccccc Ddddd WHAT COUNTY, TEXAS. Defendants

CAUSE NO. IN THE DISTRICT COURT. Xxxxx Yyyyy Plaintiffs JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Aaaaa Bbbbb Cccccc Ddddd WHAT COUNTY, TEXAS. Defendants CAUSE NO. Xxxxx Yyyyy Plaintiffs V. Aaaaa Bbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Defendants IN THE DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHAT COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

More information

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. KIM WALLANT and LOUIS BOREK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiffs, FREEDOM

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION WORLD CHANGERS OF FLORIDA, ) INC., ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. ) DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF ) COLLIER COUNTY,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:09-CV-00504

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:09-CV-00504 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:09-CV-00504 WILLIAM DAVID BOWDEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT ) TOWN OF CARY, ) ) Defendant.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JPM NETWORKS, LLC, ) d/b/a KWIKBOOST ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 3:14-cv-1507 JCM FIRST VENTURE, LLC )

More information

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO 1777 Sixth Street Boulder, CO 80302 Plaintiffs: DATE FILED: June 10, 2014 12:41 PM FILING ID: EFFA98C5BB797 CASE NUMBER: 2014CV30718 CLIFTON WILLMENG and ANN GRIFFIN,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Case 6:10-cv-00557 Document 1 Filed 10/21/10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION TRANSDATA, INC., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 6:10-cv-557

More information

Case 2:12-cv-00699-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 2:12-cv-00699-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Case 2:12-cv-00699-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PRISON LEGAL NEWS, PLAINTIFF v. ANTHONY BETTERTON, individually

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION Case 4:14-cv-00397-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION JOSEPH REILLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly

More information

Case 8:14-cv-01576-VMC-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID 1

Case 8:14-cv-01576-VMC-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID 1 Case 8:14-cv-01576-VMC-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION SARA HELLWEGE, v. Plaintiff, TAMPA FAMILY

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG (CHARLOTTESVILLE) DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. v.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG (CHARLOTTESVILLE) DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG (CHARLOTTESVILLE) DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA PATENT FOUNDATION Plaintiff, Case No. v. HAMILTON COMPANY AND HAMILTON

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MOBILE TRANSFORMATION LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Case No. A&E TELEVISION NETWORKS, LLC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. COMPLAINT Plaintiff

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., MITSUBISHI HEAVY

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA MICHAEL BARFIELD, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA Plaintiff, Case No.: IMMEDIATE HEARING v. REQUESTED PURSUANT TO Fla. Stat. 119.11 (2009) BERNADETTE DIPINO,

More information

Case 1:13-cv-00001-SEB-TAB Document 1 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

Case 1:13-cv-00001-SEB-TAB Document 1 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 Case 1:13-cv-00001-SEB-TAB Document 1 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JAIME MILLER, Plaintiff v. No.: 1:13-cv-1 CITY

More information

Case 3:14-cv-00671-HU Document 1 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case 3:14-cv-00671-HU Document 1 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Case 3:14-cv-00671-HU Document 1 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1 OSB#013943 sean.riddell@live.com Attorney At Law 4411 NE Tillamook St Portland, OR 97140 971-219-8453 Attorney for Plaintiff IN

More information

Case 4:11-cv-00650 Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Case 4:11-cv-00650 Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION Case 4:11-cv-00650 Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action

More information

INTRODUCTION. States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the State of New Jersey, New Jersey s

INTRODUCTION. States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the State of New Jersey, New Jersey s LAW OFFICES OF WALTER M. LUERS, LLC Suite C203 23 West Main Street Clinton, New Jersey 08809 Telephone: 908.894.5656 Facsimile: 908.894.5729 wluers@luerslaw.com MARK R. BROWN, ESQ. 303 E. Broad Street

More information

Case: 1:16-cv-00951 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:16-cv-00951 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Case: 1:16-cv-00951 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PAMELA ANDERSON, Individually and ) as Independent

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION WAYNE WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, PROTECT SECURITY, LLC. Defendant.

More information

Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case:-cv-0-JCS Document Filed0/0/ Page of KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP Karl S. Kronenberger (Bar No. ) Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. ) Ansel J. Halliburton (Bar No. 0) 0 Post Street, Suite 0 San Francisco,

More information

Case 1:13-cv MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2013 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:13-cv MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2013 Page 1 of 14 Case 1:13-cv-22365-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2013 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE, INC.,

More information

Case 3:14-cv-00929-AWT Document 1 Filed 06/26/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case 3:14-cv-00929-AWT Document 1 Filed 06/26/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Case 3:14-cv-00929-AWT Document 1 Filed 06/26/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ZIPLINK, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JURY

More information

1 2 3 4 5 [ATTORNEY NAME] (ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER) [ATTORNEY EMAIL ADDRESS] [LAW FIRM NAME] [LAW FIRM STREET ADDRESS] [LAW FIRM CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE] [LAW FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER] [LAW FIRM FAX NUMBER]

More information

SCREEN SPECIALISTS and RICHARD REUSCH, individually, stipulate that the ultrasound. are prescription devices as cleared for marketing by the

SCREEN SPECIALISTS and RICHARD REUSCH, individually, stipulate that the ultrasound. are prescription devices as cleared for marketing by the CAUSE NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS VS. HEALTH SCREEN SPECIALISTS OF SAN ANTONIO, INC. d/b/a/ HEALTH SCREEN SPECIALISTS, and RICHARD REUSCH, Individually,

More information

Case 3:15-cv-04959 Document 1 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 13

Case 3:15-cv-04959 Document 1 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 13 Case 3:15-cv-04959 Document 1 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 13 Phil Telfeyan California Bar No. 258270 Attorney, Equal Justice Under Law 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW South Building Suite 900 Washington, D.C.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION GEORGIACARRY.ORG, INC. and ) REBECCA BREED, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. ) v. ) ) KIPLING L. MCVAY in

More information

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND FOR COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND FOR COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES MARTHA MATTHEWS, SBN 0 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 00 Telephone: (1) -00 x Facsimile: (1) 0-0 COURTNEY JOSLIN, SBN 0 NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS 0 Market

More information

COMPLAINT PARTIES. 2. COGA promotes the expansion of oil and gas supplies, markets, and transportation infrastructure.

COMPLAINT PARTIES. 2. COGA promotes the expansion of oil and gas supplies, markets, and transportation infrastructure. DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO 1777 Sixth Street Boulder, CO 80302 Plaintiff: COLORADO OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION v. Defendant: COURT USE ONLY Case No. Division/Courtroom: CITY OF LAFAYETTE, COLORADO

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION RPOST HOLDINGS, INC., RPOST COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, and RMAIL LIMITED, CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiffs, v. ADOBE SYSTEMS

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case:-cv-0 Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 LAKESHORE LAW CENTER Jeffrey Wilens, Esq. (State Bar No. 0 0 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 0-0 Yorba Linda, CA --0 --0 (fax jeff@lakeshorelaw.org Attorney and Plaintiff

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION ETHAN W. BLEVINS, Mont. State Bar No. 37415893 10940 NE 33rd Place, Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98004 ewb@pacificlegal.org Telephone: (425) 576-0484 Facsimile: (425) 576-9565 JOSHUA P. THOMPSON, Cal.

More information

COMPLAINT. Now come Plaintiffs, personal care attendants, consumers, surrogates,

COMPLAINT. Now come Plaintiffs, personal care attendants, consumers, surrogates, DOCKET NO. SUPERIOR COURT Catherine D. Ludlum, : Amber L. Michaud, : The Connecticut Association of Personal : SUPERIOR COURT Assistance, Inc., : Senator Joseph Markley, : State Representative Robert C.

More information

Case 3:12-cv-01072-MJR-PMF Document 2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 3:12-cv-01072-MJR-PMF Document 2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Case 3:12-cv-01072-MJR-PMF Document 2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CYRIL B. KORTE, JANE E. KORTE, and KORTE & LUITJOHAN CONTRACTORS,

More information

Case 1:14-cv-01362-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:14-cv-01362-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:14-cv-01362-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ENDEAVOR MESHTECH, INC., Plaintiff, v. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., Civil

More information

Case4:15-cv-04219-DMR Document1 Filed09/16/15 Page1 of 11

Case4:15-cv-04219-DMR Document1 Filed09/16/15 Page1 of 11 Case:-cv-0-DMR Document Filed0// Page of MICHAEL G. RHODES () (rhodesmg@cooley.com) California Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA Telephone: Facsimile: BRENDAN J. HUGHES (pro hac vice to be filed) (bhughes@cooley.com)

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO COLORADO CRIMINAL DEFENSE BAR, a Colorado non-profit corporation; COLORADO CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM COALITION, a Colorado

More information

Case 3:16-cv-03615 Document 1 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 18

Case 3:16-cv-03615 Document 1 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 18 Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 JONATHAN H. BLAVIN (State Bar No. 0) jonathan.blavin@mto.com ELLEN M. RICHMOND (State Bar No. ) ellen.richmond@mto.com JOSHUA PATASHNIK (State Bar No. ) josh.patashnik@mto.com

More information

Florida Senate - 2016 SB 872

Florida Senate - 2016 SB 872 By Senator Bean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 A bill to be entitled An act relating to federal immigration enforcement; providing a short title; creating

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Case No: Defendants, Steven Lecy and the City of Minneapolis, through their

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Case No: Defendants, Steven Lecy and the City of Minneapolis, through their CASE 0:13-cv-00873-RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Michael A. Ofor, Case No: Plaintiff, v. Steven Lecy, and City of Minneapolis, NOTICE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION ZIPIT WIRELESS INC., Plaintiff, v. BLACKBERRY LIMITED F/K/A RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and BLACKBERRY CORPORATION f/k/a

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA DEAN KUMANCHIK, vs. Plaintiff, Case No.: UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD d/b/a UNIVERSAL STUDIOS, a Florida

More information

Case 4:15-cv-00146-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Case 4:15-cv-00146-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION Case 4:15-cv-00146-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION CHRISTOPHER M. JENSEN, v. Plaintiff, LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA,

More information

Case 1:16-cv-00320-CBA-PK Document 1 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:16-cv-00320-CBA-PK Document 1 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case 116-cv-00320-CBA-PK Document 1 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID # 1 Frank J. Martinez (FJM-2149) THE MARTINEZ GROUP PLLC 55 Washington Street, Suite 253-C Brooklyn, New York 11201 718.797.2341 Telephone

More information

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE RICHARD MILLER, of the ) Town of Searsport, County of ) Waldo, State of Maine, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) DALE MCCORMICK in her official capacity ) as Director and

More information

Case 7:08-cv-00185-H Document 1 Filed 11/10/2008 Page 1 of 11

Case 7:08-cv-00185-H Document 1 Filed 11/10/2008 Page 1 of 11 Case 7:08-cv-00185-H Document 1 Filed 11/10/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. : -CV- (_) ) JESSE NIETO, ) ) Plaintiff,

More information

CAUSE NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff LIFESTREAM PURIFICATION SYSTEMS, LLC. DALLAS COUNTY, T E X A S

CAUSE NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff LIFESTREAM PURIFICATION SYSTEMS, LLC. DALLAS COUNTY, T E X A S CAUSE NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff VS. LIFESTREAM PURIFICATION SYSTEMS, LLC. DALLAS COUNTY, T E X A S Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT FINAL JUDGMENT AND AGREED PERMANENT INJUNCTION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA PHILIP M. BALLIF Nevada Bar # 2650 DURHAM, JONES & PINEGAR. P.C. 10785 W. Twain Avenue, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702 870-6060 Facsimile: (702 870-6090 Email: pballif@djplaw.com JOHN

More information

MARC D. LAVIK, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. PC 11- : DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, : DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, : STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, : COMPLAINT

MARC D. LAVIK, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. PC 11- : DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, : DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, : STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, : COMPLAINT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE, SC SUPERIOR COURT MARC D. LAVIK, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. PC 11- DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, Defendant. COMPLAINT Parties and

More information

Yes. There are two types of nuisances, a private nuisance and a public nuisance.

Yes. There are two types of nuisances, a private nuisance and a public nuisance. What is a nuisance? An activity which arises from unreasonable, unwarranted or unlawful use by a person of his/her own property, working obstruction or injury to the right of another, or to the public,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Case :-cv-00-tsz Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 EVAN CONKLIN PLUMBING AND HEATING INC., a Washington corporation d/b/a SEATTLE PLUMBING

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH GRADUATE SCHOOL, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. A:09 CA 382 TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COODINATING

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY. No. I. INTRODUCTION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY. No. I. INTRODUCTION 1 1 1 1 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY DANIEL MADISON, SEBRINA MOORE, LARENCE BOLDEN, BEVERLY DUBOIS, and DANIELLE GARNER, v. Plaintiffs, STATE OF WASHINGTON; GARY LOCKE, Governor,

More information

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341 In The Matter of the Claim of: --------------------------------------------------------------------X THE NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, WESTCHESTER COUNTY FIREARMS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, SPORTSMEN

More information

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1 Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GARY HANLEY on behalf of himself and

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 WILLIAM E. KOVACIC General Counsel KATHERINE ROMANO SCHNACK THERESE L. TULLY Federal Trade Commission East Monroe Street, Suite Chicago, Illinois 00 (1 0- [Ph.] (1 0-00 [Fax] FAYE CHEN

More information

U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTER DISTRICT OF KE TUCKY AT LOUISVILLE O. FILED ELECTRO ICALLY U IVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE

U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTER DISTRICT OF KE TUCKY AT LOUISVILLE O. FILED ELECTRO ICALLY U IVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTER DISTRICT OF KE TUCKY AT LOUISVILLE O. FILED ELECTRO ICALLY I A YODER 9914 Mary Dell Lane Louisville, KY 40291 PLAI TIFF v. U IVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE DEFE DA TS Serve:

More information

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND District Court, Denver County, Colorado 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80202 GUILLERMO ARTEAGA-GOMEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DATE FILED: January 22, 2015 6:02

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. JURY DEMANDED COMPLAINT THE PARTIES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. JURY DEMANDED COMPLAINT THE PARTIES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION PRINTERON INC., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-3025 v. JURY DEMANDED BREEZYPRINT CORPORATION and U.S. HOSPITALITY

More information

Case 2:13-cv-01431-RBS Document 1 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:13-cv-01431-RBS Document 1 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:13-cv-01431-RBS Document 1 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAVID GARCIA : 7427 Belden Street : Basement Apt. : PHILADELPHIA,

More information

Case 1:14-cv-12193-WGY Document 1 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Case 1:14-cv-12193-WGY Document 1 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Case 1:14-cv-12193-WGY Document 1 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS PRIVATE BUSINESS JETS, L.L.C. Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. PRVT, Inc. Defendant. COMPLAINT

More information

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, Case No.: v. Plaintiff, BASS PRELITIGATION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-000-jah -CAB Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: ) josh@westcoastlitigation.com Robert L. Hyde, Esq. (SBN: ) bob@westcoastlitigation.com Hyde & Swigart Camino Del Rio South,

More information

Case 3:14-cv-01698-RNC Document 1 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case 3:14-cv-01698-RNC Document 1 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Case 3:14-cv-01698-RNC Document 1 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Sharon Isett, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,

More information

Errors and Omissions Insurance. 1.0 Introduction and Definition

Errors and Omissions Insurance. 1.0 Introduction and Definition Errors and Omissions Insurance 1.0 Introduction and Definition 1.1 Under the terms of this policy the word employee means any trustee of the Board of Education, any employee of the Hicksville Board of

More information

Case 3:08-cv-01406-JM-CAB Document 9 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 7

Case 3:08-cv-01406-JM-CAB Document 9 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 7 Case :0-cv-00-JM-CAB Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 JOHN J. SANSONE, County Counsel County of San Diego By THOMAS D. BUNTON, Senior Deputy (State Bar No. 0 00 Pacific Highway, Room San Diego, California

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON RONALD A. MARRON (SBN 10) ron@consumersadvocates.com ALEXIS WOOD (SBN 000) alexis@consumersadvocates.com KAS GALLUCCI (SBN 0) kas@consumersadvocates.com

More information

TITLE 34. LABOR AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION CHAPTER 19. CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT. N.J. Stat. 34:19-1 (2007)

TITLE 34. LABOR AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION CHAPTER 19. CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT. N.J. Stat. 34:19-1 (2007) TITLE 34. LABOR AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION CHAPTER 19. CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT N.J. Stat. 34:19-1 (2007) 34:19-1. Short title This act shall be known and may [be] cited as the "Conscientious

More information

&lagistiiale JUDGE ROSEMONO

&lagistiiale JUDGE ROSEMONO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION H. STUiiiiT CGNNINGHAM UmEQ SIXm DISTRICT COW JULIE A. TEURBER, Plaintiff,' t ) CIVIL ACTION NO. V. CAROL M. BROWNER,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORIGINAL COMPLAINT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION WALTER ALLEN ROTHGERY, v. Plaintiff, GILLESPIE COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant. Cause No. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff Walter Allen

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF ROBERT D.S. KIM A Law Corporation Attorney At Law ROBERT D.S. KIM 4255-0 77-6400 Nalani Street, Suite A-1 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Telephone (808 329-6611 Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE CIRCUIT COURT

More information

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF] hereby sues the Defendants, [DEFENDANT #1], [DEFENDANT INTRODUCTION

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF] hereby sues the Defendants, [DEFENDANT #1], [DEFENDANT INTRODUCTION Form 2:40-2 Complaint Negligence, Motor Vehicle IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ## JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR [COUNTY], FLORIDA [PLAINTIFF], Plaintiff, CASE NO.: ##-##### ## ## GENERAL JURISDICTION vs. [DEFENDANT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON ROSS A. DAY, Or. Bar No. 002395 ross@oia.org Oregonians in Action P.O. Box 230637 Tigard, Oregon 97281 Telephone: (503) 620-0258 Facsimile: (503) 639-6891 JOHN H. FINDLEY, Cal. Bar No. 50495* jhf@pacificlegal.org

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ) IATRIC SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-13121 ) v. ) ) FAIRWARNING, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ) IATRIC SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-13121 ) v. ) ) FAIRWARNING, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS IATRIC SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-13121 v. FAIRWARNING, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. COMPLAINT Iatric Systems, Inc.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ACQIS LLC, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., Case No. 6:11-CV-546 Jury Trial Demanded

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Case 2:12-cv-00604-MHS-CMC Document 1 Filed 09/18/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1 CAPITAL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Plaintiff,

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA H.L. WATKINS AND COMPANY, INC., ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. v. ) ) 06-CV8980-3 THE HOT LEAD COMPANY, LLC, ) ROBERT MICHAEL HORNE, )

More information

Case: 1:15-cv-09957 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

Case: 1:15-cv-09957 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 Case: 1:15-cv-09957 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 JACLYN PAZERA Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION v. Case No.

More information

CHEROKEE TRIBAL COURT EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS CHEROKEE, NORTH CAROLINA CASE NO.

CHEROKEE TRIBAL COURT EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS CHEROKEE, NORTH CAROLINA CASE NO. CHEROKEE TRIBAL COURT EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS CHEROKEE, NORTH CAROLINA CASE NO. THE EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE ) INDIANS FOR JUSTICE & ACCOUNTABILITY, ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) COMPLAINT FOR ) DECLARATORY

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION. v. Case No. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION. v. Case No. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION ALLURE ENERGY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. Case No. NEST LABS, INC., a Delaware corporation, GREEN

More information

NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY COUNTY, TEXAS. CVS PHARMACY, INC. Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY COUNTY, TEXAS. CVS PHARMACY, INC. Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY COUNTY, TEXAS CVS PHARMACY, INC. Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION TO THE HONORABLE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION Lake James H. Perriguey, OSB No. 983213 lake@law-works.com LAW WORKS LLC 1906 SW Madison Street Portland, OR 97205-1718 Telephone: (503) 227-1928 Facsimile: (503) 334-2340 Lea Ann Easton, OSB No. 881413

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 0 0 Jeffrey S. Kaufman, Esq. JEFFREY S. KAUFMAN, LTD. N. Scottsdale Road, Ste. 0 (0-000 Bar No. 00 Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR

More information

Case 1:10-cv-10494-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:10-cv-10494-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Case 1:10-cv-10494-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. AND PHILIPS SOLID-STATE LIGHTING SOLUTIONS,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 Sterling A. Brennan (CA State Bar No. 01) E-Mail: sbrennan@mabr.com Tyson K. Hottinger (CA State Bar No. 1) E-Mail: thottinger@mabr.com MASCHOFF BRENNAN LAYCOCK GILMORE ISRAELSEN & WRIGHT, PLLC

More information